December 2014

February 28, 2009

The arguing continues. Was George Will totally wrong to say recent expert reports indicate global sea ice today is the same as it was in 1979? Should he have said it’s the same as it was in 1980? Does it make a difference?

The Will piece is controversial because he quoted the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, which then responded that Will, the center’s opinion, had misused its data showing sea ice today is 8 percent lower than it was in 1979.

8% ‘slight’? To Will, that 8 percent difference is about the same. Ombudsman Alexander found that, in fact, the Research Center, in January, had used the words “near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979” to describe today’s ice. But now, the Research Center says that 8 percent is not “slightly lower”; it’s ice equal in area to Texas, California and Oklahoma combined.

Meanwhile, others are pointing out that today’s sea ice area is greater than it was in 1980, just a year after the year everyone else is fighting about. Choose your baseline. If it’s 1979, today’s ice is down. If it’s 1980, today’s ice is up.

Says Alexander:

[Washington Post] editors also missed opportunities to move the debate to washingtonpost.com. Will’s column attracted hundreds of comments online, and the three-day cutoff period for comments could have been extended to allow more. Experts could have been quickly engaged to debate Will’s assertions. Clarifications from the Arctic Climate Research Center could have been posted.

There is a disturbing if-you-don’t-agree-with-me-you’re-an-idiot tone to much of the global warming debate. Thoughtful discourse is noticeably absent in the current dispute. But that’s where The Post could have helped, and can in the future.

Debate goes on. That’s the great thing about Will’s column. It actually started a global warming debate. I finally can see what each side (Really, there are at least two sides) is arguing about global warming and, with the back and forth, we’re all learning something. Let’s have more of this.

The debate is not over.

If those who warn of a manmade global warming catastrophe were totally confident in their position, they’d be calling for massive nuclear power expansion right now. Few are. The doubt is evident.

Some news channels reported that President Obama never mentioned “victory” or “success” in his speech yesterday about bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq next year. Not true!

Obama didn’t use the word “victory” or “democracy,” but he did tell our troops plainly: “Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation.” He also said American GIs had helped Iraq establish “legitimate institutions,” and they'll stay around a little longer “to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable.”

Beyond that, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said of our troops, “They don’t have to be told they’ve been successful. They know it.”

Welcome back, liberators! Well, with Saddam Hussein gone, a democracy replacing the old police state, and Obama declaring our successful U.S. combat troops can come home by the end of August 2010, it’s time to prepare an Iraq Victory Parade.

Congress should invite every available Iraq war veteran, anyone who served in 1991, from 2003 to 2010 and in “No-Fly Zone” operations in between, to show up in uniform in Washington, D.C., Saturday, Aug. 28, 2010, to celebrate the victory of Iraqi freedom.

As the president told the troops yesterday:

“I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime -- and you got the job done.

“We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government -- and you got the job done.

“And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life -- that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.”

Democracy boulevard. A hard-won democracy in Iraq is something worth celebrating. This demands a Victory Parade down Pennsylvania Avenue.

February 27, 2009

There was President Obama addressing the Marines at Camp Lejeune, telling them they had “succeeded” in the war “against tyranny and disorder” in Iraq, but refusing again and again and again to acknowledge what they had won: a free democracy in a former totalitarian police state.

No doubt Obama avoided describing the prize because it would shame fellow Democrats who had hoped President Bush’s democratization of Iraq would fail. To say clearly that freedom has replaced tyranny also might remind us true liberals that Obama himself opposed Iraq’s liberation, that he even voted two years ago to abandon Iraq in it most perilous hour.

1. “You have fought against tyranny and disorder.” And they fought for what?

2. “You have bled for your best friends and for unknown Iraqis.” To give them what?

3. “And you have borne an enormous burden for your fellow citizens, while extending a precious opportunity to the people of Iraq.” Opportunity for what?

4. “Under tough circumstances, the men and women of the United States military have served with honor, and succeeded beyond any expectation.” Succeeded at delivering what?

5. “Today, I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.” Now that what has been won?

6. “Thanks in great measure to your service, the situation in Iraq has improved. Violence has been reduced substantially from the horrific sectarian killing of 2006 and 2007.” With violence down, what now can flourish?

7. “The capacity of Iraq’s Security Forces has improved, and Iraq’s leaders have taken steps toward political accommodation.” Political accommodation within what form of government?

8. “The relative peace and strong participation in January’s provincial elections sent a powerful message to the world about how far Iraqis have come in pursuing their aspirations through a peaceful political process.” Iraqi aspirations for what? Where is that “d” word?

9. “Too many fundamental political questions about Iraq’s future remain unresolved.” You mean the struggle between tyranny and something else?

10. “And even as Iraq’s government is on a surer footing, it is not yet a full partner – politically and economically – in the region, or with the international community.” Is it hard for Iraq because its neighbors are dictatorships and it now is something else?

11. “In short, today there is a renewed cause for hope in Iraq, but that hope rests upon an emerging foundation.” An emerging foundation for what?

12. “We have acted with careful consideration of events on the ground; with respect for the security agreements between the United States and Iraq; and with a critical recognition that the long-term solution in Iraq must be political – not military.” Political? You mean something other than dictatorship?

13. “Because the most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq’s future must now be made by Iraqis.” Within a certain form of government?

14. “Today, I can announce that our review is complete, and that the United States will pursue a new strategy to end the war in Iraq through a transition to full Iraqi responsibility.” Responsibility for the defense of what new thing?

15. “This strategy is grounded in a clear and achievable goal shared by the Iraqi people and the American people: an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.” Sovereign, stable, and self-reliant? Is that all?

16. “To achieve that goal, we will work to promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, and accountable, and that provides neither support nor safe-haven to terrorists.” Just, representative and accountable? So close. What’s the precise word?

17. “And we will forge a partnership with the people and government of Iraq that contributes to the peace and security of the region.” And peace and security are most likely under what form of government?

18. “We cannot police Iraq’s streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq’s union is perfected.” Was “union” the goal in Iraq, or is it something else?

19. “America’s men and women in uniform have fought block by block, province by province, year after year, to give the Iraqis this chance to choose a better future.” “A better future” through what?

20. “Now, we must ask the Iraqi people to seize it.” Seize what?

21. “As a candidate for President, I made clear my support for a timeline of 16 months to carry out this drawdown, while pledging to consult closely with our military commanders upon taking office to ensure that we preserve the gains we’ve made and protect our troops.” Preserving “gains” at securing what?

22. “Let me say this as plainly as I can: by August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end.” With what major change left behind?

23. “But our enemies should be left with no doubt: this plan gives our military the forces and the flexibility they need to support our Iraqi partners, and to succeed.” Succeed at building what?

24. “After we remove our combat brigades, our mission will change from combat to supporting the Iraqi government and its Security Forces as they take the absolute lead in securing their country.” Supporting and securing what in Iraq?

25. “We will complete this transition to Iraqi responsibility, and we will bring our troops home with the honor that they have earned.” Transition to “Iraqi responsibility” for what? Our troops will come home with honor for winning what?

26. “As we responsibly remove our combat brigades, we will pursue the second part of our strategy: sustained diplomacy on behalf of a more peaceful and prosperous Iraq.” Peace and prosperity are the goals for Iraq? What exactly makes that more likely now?

27. “The drawdown of our military should send a clear signal that Iraq’s future is now its own responsibility.” “Iraq’s future” is the same as saying what?

28. “The long-term success of the Iraqi nation will depend upon decisions made by Iraq’s leaders and the fortitude of the Iraqi people.” “Long-term success” at preserving what?

29. “Iraq is a sovereign country with legitimate institutions; America cannot – and should not – take their place.” “Legitimate institutions.” How did they become legitimate?

30. “However, a strong political, diplomatic, and civilian effort on our part can advance progress and help lay a foundation for lasting peace and security.” Progress at what?

31. “We will work with the United Nations to support national elections, while helping Iraqis improve local government.” Hmm. “Elections.” If free and fair, these are part of what form of government?

32. “And just as we will support Iraq’s Security Forces, we will help Iraqi institutions strengthen their capacity to protect the rule of law, confront corruption, and deliver basic services.” “The rule of law” as guaranteed by what?

33. “We will work with the Iraqi government over time to resettle refugees and displaced Iraqis within Iraq – because there are few more powerful indicators of lasting peace than displaced citizens returning home.” Returning home to what?

34. “Now, before I go any further, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the people of Iraq. … In years past, you have persevered through tyranny and terror; through personal insecurity and sectarian violence.” They persevered in the hope of what?

35. “And instead of giving in to the forces of disunion, you stepped back from a descent into civil war, and showed a proud resilience that deserves respect.” What thing, more important than “union,” was their resilience for?

36. “Ours is a bond forged by shared bloodshed, and countless friendships among our people.” Bloodshed for what?

37. “We Americans have offered our most precious resource – our young men and women – to work with you to rebuild what was destroyed by despotism; to root out our common enemies; and to seek peace and prosperity for our children and grandchildren, and for yours.” Oh my God. The fight was for peace and prosperity alone? Was their something else, something that raises the odds of peace and prosperity?

38. “There are those who will try to prevent that future for Iraq – who will insist that Iraq’s differences cannot be reconciled without more killing.” Those foes are opposed to what form of government in Iraq?

39. “America, too, has known these forces. We endured the pain of Civil War, and bitter divisions of region and race.” And despite of the demands for union, what eventually was the higher goal -- the higher prize -- of the American Civil War?

40. “But hostility and hatred are no match for justice; they offer no pathway to peace; and they must not stand between the people of Iraq and a future of reconciliation and hope.” “A future of reconciliation and hope.” That means living in what kind of country?

41. “We respect your sovereignty and the tremendous sacrifices you have made for your country.” Sacrifices for what kind of change to their country?

42. “We seek a full transition to Iraqi responsibility for the security of your country.” What kind of country?

43. “And going forward, we can build a lasting relationship founded upon mutual interests and mutual respect as Iraq takes its rightful place in the community of nations.” Under what kind of government?

44. “The future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader Middle East, so we must work with our friends and partners to establish a new framework that advances Iraq’s security and the region’s.” What in Iraq do we want to keep secure?

45. “Finally, I want to be very clear that my strategy for ending the war in Iraq does not end with military plans or diplomatic agendas – it endures through our commitment to uphold our sacred trust with every man and woman who has served in Iraq. You make up a fraction of the American population, but in an age when so many people and institutions have acted irresponsibly, you did the opposite – you volunteered to bear the heaviest burden.” A burden in service to what?

46. “As a nation, we have had our share of debates about the war in Iraq. But there should be no disagreement on what the men and women of our military have achieved.” WHAT?

47. “And so I want to be very clear: We sent our troops to Iraq to do away with Saddam Hussein’s regime – and you got the job done.” Wow. Getting rid of Saddam was enough, or did something have to replace his fascist regime?

48. “We kept our troops in Iraq to help establish a sovereign government – and you got the job done.” And the difference between Iraq’s new sovereign government and Saddam’s is that this is what?

49. “And we will leave the Iraqi people with a hard-earned opportunity to live a better life – that is your achievement; that is the prospect that you have made possible.”

50. “We have learned that in the 21st century, we must use all elements of American power to achieve our objectives.” What are our objectives for other nations living in tyranny?

51. “The starting point for our policies must always be the safety of the American people.” Safety within which form of government?

52. “America’s time in Iraq is filled with stories of men and women like this. Their names are written into bridges and town squares. They are etched into stones at Arlington, and in quiet places of rest across our land. They are spoken in schools and on city blocks. They live on in the memories of those who wear your uniform, in the hearts of those they loved, and in the freedom of the nation they served.” Finally, a mention of “freedom,” but not “Iraqi freedom.”

53. “You teach us that the price of freedom is great.” “Freedom” again! Is this what American troops won in Iraq? Spell it out. Are you talking about Iraq? After Saddam fell, what did our troops win for Iraq?

54. “We will face new tests and unforeseen trials. But thanks to the sacrifices of those who have served, we have forged hard-earned progress, we are leaving Iraq to its people, and we have begun the work of ending this war.” He can even say “winning this war.” How can he say what the victory won?

Elephant in the room. Look at the verbal gymnastics Obama had to perform to leave democracy out of this Camp Lejeune speech. So our troops removed Saddam Hussein and fought “against tyranny and disorder” in Iraq. I guess that’s as far as Obama ever will go.

It reminds me of the line in “South Pacific,” when the Frenchman Emile de Becque tells U.S. Navy and Marine officers fighting World War II, “I know what you are against. What are you for?” Inexplicably, the officers have no answer. Figure that out.

But that was a musical play. This is the real world, split between the free and unfree. Is there any good reason capital-D Democrats never have anything encouraging to say about democracy? Is it no longer a priority of the Democratic Party?

Can’t celebrate liberation. Even when the United States has won a major victory for democracy, a Democratic president is unable to cheer the achievement by describing the prize by its real name. It’s sad.

February 26, 2009

Imagine using that $787 billion in “stimulus” money to build 78 new nuclear power plants (about $10 billion apiece).

Such a massive construction program would create millions of jobs, and in the end, we’d have expanded our domestic CO2-free energy to continue fueling our economy for another generation or more.

Seventy-eight nuclear plants -- 78 new generating reactors -- would nearly double the nuclear power output in the United States. That would bring the portion of U.S. electricity generated by nuclear plants from 20 percent to nearly 40 percent.

That compares to Sweden, which is 50 percent nuclear and just announced it will increase its nuclear power, and it still would be far less than France, which makes 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power.

Note: Some experts say an average 1,100-megawatt nuclear reactor can be installed for $5 billion. If so, $787 billion would buy us 157 new nuclear plants.

No oil shale either. Meanwhile, today we find that the Department of Interior plans to ban oil shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. The Institute for Energy Research says the oil shale there contains energy larger than the total oil reserves of the Middle East.

So a recession that began with too much high-risk borrowing and too little economical energy is being addressed with even more high-risk borrowing and even less economical energy. What gives?

February 24, 2009

Here, in tonight’s address to Congress, is President Obama’s only mention of “freedom.” It’s buried in these two weak paragraphs:

"History reminds us that at every moment of economic upheaval and transformation, this nation has responded with bold action and big ideas. In the midst of civil war, we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another that spurred commerce and industry. From the turmoil of the Industrial Revolution came a system of public high schools that prepared our citizens for a new age. In the wake of war and depression, the GI Bill sent a generation to college and created the largest middle-class in history. And a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways, an American on the moon, and an explosion of technology that still shapes our world.

"In each case, government didn’t supplant private enterprise; it catalyzed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."

So the only time Obama mentions freedom is to claim that “a twilight struggle” for it accidentally got us some new roads and stuff. Disappointing.

Frank Warner

Update: On further reflection, I just have to wonder about Obama's speechwriting process. Is there no historian in the White House to go over these things? The Cold War got us highways? Why celebrate that unless you want another Cold War? Elsewhere in the speech, it was a stretch to say America invented the car. Americans certainly came up with mass production, but why open a speech to nitpicking when a couple of words -- perhaps "the modern car" -- could have protected the speaker? The editing is poor.

Beyond that, Obama has to look at the words of freedom that John Kennedy used in 1961, the words that demonstrated an understanding of "the long twilight stuggle":

"Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, 'rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation'—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

"Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country."

Liberal education. Kennedy was a real liberal, who knew the stakes in the struggle between freedom and tyranny. On this subject, Obama has a lot to learn.

Already, the Chicago-based Tribune Co., Philadelphia Newspapers Inc., the Journal-Register chain and the Minneapolis Star Tribune have filed for bankruptcy protection. The Chronicle has its own financial troubles.

The Internet not only provides the news free, and free of most advertising, but it proves what journalists already knew: that collecting and reporting the news is fun, so much fun that millions of people are willing to do it for little or no pay.

New journalism. We can condescend and call the bloggers amateurs who don’t know news from noise, but it’s becoming clearer every day that bloggers and other Internet information sources are no more or less reliable than newspapers, and that online readers quickly sort out the trustworthy from the trash.

For now, it’s sad to see the passing of an entire industry. Print newspaper circulation is dropping fast. Soon we’ll have few printed dailies. But journalism will go on.

The fictional Citizen Kane once said “it would be fun to run a newspaper.” And like real newspaper publishers, he had his fun and died.

As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois’ Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.

When the Arctic Climate Research Center saw Will’s column, it responded that Will is wrong:

We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.

It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.

Then the Washington Post ombudsman Andy Alexander noted that the Arctic Climate Research Center had said just last month:

“Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979.”

But then Media Matters says that Will and Alexander ignored other parts of the Arctic Climate Research Center’s January report, which said the increased sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere confirms most theories of manmade global warming:

The full document states that “[a]lmost all” climate models project that human-caused global warming will result in decreased sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere, that some recent studies have suggested that warming might initially cause sea ice to increase in the Southern Hemisphere, and that these projections are consistent with observed sea ice data.

Media Matters and environmental groups also criticize George Will for saying:

“According to the U.N. World Meteorological Organization [WMO], there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.”

The point here is, while 1998 was the hottest year in recent memory, the fact that the more recent years were a tiny bit cooler does not alter the overall trend of global warming.

This is a good to and fro. We actually can learn something from people making points, others making rebuttals, and then taking rebuttals in the opposite direction. This is exactly why I often have called for a major public debate, televised on C-SPAN, on the question of manmade global warming.

Unfortunately, too many people told us “the debate is over” before we ever heard it.

February 23, 2009

Media Matters, news watchdog for the Democratic Party, did an interesting study that discovered the cable networks obsessed on the politics, but virtually ignored the economics of the recently passed economic “stimulus” law.

We heard over and over about who was or wasn’t being bipartisan, but we heard little about whether nonpartisan economists thought the $787 billion in tax cuts and spending really would stimulate the economy.

Some of the economists who did appear from Jan. 25 through Feb. 8 could hardly be considered objective analysts. On MSNBC, Democratic hack Rachel Maddow brought on Democratic hack economist Paul Krugman. Over two weeks, in eight hours of programming about the stimulus, Maddow talked with that one economist, once.

Beck’s pack. On Fox News, Republican hack Glenn Beck brought on more economists from Jan. 25 through Feb. 8 than any other cable news figure. Most of the guests agreed with his own opposition to the “stimulus” bill. However, guest Ben Stein is known to favor the stimulus, and he was on with Beck.

In nine hours devoted to the economic “stimulus” over those two weeks, Beck talked with seven economists. The others were Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, Barry Ritholtz, Amity Shlaes and Thomas Sowell.

I would love to have seen Harvard’s Robert Barro debate Columbia’s Joseph Stiglitz on TV before Congress voted. But then again, most of the debates I dream about never happen.